Dude, even if I don't share the complaining about the current companions I never called anyone "infantile" nor I presumed anything about anyone. I'll ask you to do the same.
You presumed plenty. Do not pass judgement if you do not want to receive it.
1) I don't think they are poorly written and what you are saying is that you don't find them likeable because they are too self-centred, which is exactly my point. As I said, "I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation." No one likes a "look at me, I'm important" character, the thing I think is missing from your argumentation is again, context. Of course they are self-centred at the beginning of the adventure, you are all strangers to one another and the only people you have a notion of is yourselves. You are going to talk about you and focus on your personal objectives, not asking "how was your day darling?". As the game progresses and you open up to one another, things are gonna change, in fact they change even before the end of act one, as I mentioned.
If it is so self evident why did you not directly address the examples given and completely ignore the two established scientific areas of study that contradict their behavior as well as demonstrating that people have varied responses to these stimuli? This factor alone can be used to defend that they are poorly written as their characters and context are not taken into account when considering their reactions and behavior. We have credible and proven scientific data to back this up.
Furthermore no. Not everyone is self centered and once again making everyone self centered diminishes the variety of characterization, is ignorant of context and other factors, and diminishes the quality of writing by it's very nature. Claiming that people are automatically self centered around strangers is absolutely ludicrous as even by examining common language you can find evidence that this is not the case from expressions such as "good samaritan". Again, we have scientific research into this and while it is not impossible the choice to not explore other avenues or write other reactions diminishes variety and characterization thereby detracting from the quality of the writing.
2) Do you really think the usual job environment is a good comparison with having a living parasite inside you who is going to end you at any moment? If their behaviour will stay like that for weeks or months after the discovery that the tadpole is in stasis and they are in no immediate danger then I will agree they are reacting in a poor way, but the events of the EA take place in just a couple of days after the abduction, their stress and bad reaction are more than justified. Sure, you could've wished for more positive characters capable of handling stress better, but suggesting that SH selfishness in this context is unrealistic is to be blind, in my opinion.
I already addressed this. We have scientific evidence and study to back up a multitude of valid reactions and we understanding a lot of the reasons for it. This being left out diminshes the quality and characterization through homogenuity thereby automatically decreasing the quality of the writing. To put this in laymans terms, all the characters being samey is evidence of poor writing.
3) Again, me suspecting of having carbon monoxide poisoning that will kill me slowly in the real world is not the same of having a tadpole in your head who is going to rip your organs after a couple of days. In the real world, in case of poisoning, I will not be in a good mood for sure, but at least I know there are doctors who are going to reassure and take care of me, it is all another story than having a tadpole you can't get rid of and with the only known "medic" of the place missing (you find Halsin only near the end of EA). It's an RPG, people should try to imaging themselves in the world, characters and CONTEXT.
You are right, carbon monoxide poisoning is infinitely more terrifying. Nothing you said responded to the question I asked. The reason you are presenting this argument is because I gave you the diagnosis but in reality all you would feel is extreme nausea, headaches, dizziness etc which can be attributed to a multitude of problems many of which doctors do not have a sure fire way of fixing. I was a soldier, I do not need to imagine, I have been there. I have had these experiences. It is not justification for the lack of characterization and variety which ignores scientific research and evidence.
4) I don't know what kind of example do you want honestly. I find them written exquisitely because they are *believable* when you are talking to them. I can't say if their stories are well written because I know only the tip of the iceberg since we are still in EA, but I know they feel alive like few other both in the good and the bad.
I'm not sure what you want me to say. You cannot give me examples which means there either aren't any or you do not know the technicalities behind writing standard which is even worse. I can link you to articles regarding the characterization of characters if you want but honestly at this point I'm pretty much committed to making an in depth analysis of this so I'd rather wait for you to provide me with some kind of evidence until that time.
5) A company doesn't create a game only because "people are asking for it", besides, the fact that there are people in this forum who have bought EA means that there are people who wanted the game. If you think a game called "BG3" doesn't deserve to be played because it has no connection (for now) with the previous title just don't play it.
I think those would be interesting reads and well worth your time. Also what I said was that a game called BG3 has big shoes to fill on account of it's brand recognition as well as the finality on which the series closed while drawing attention to the fact that there is no connection and therefor no reason to call it the third part of a series other than brand recognition. Do not twist my words to suit your argument.
Of course, you can criticise some aspects of it (even I think BG story-arc should have stayed untouched and this game should have been called with another name), as I said there are a lot of good criticisms in this forum, but they must be valid, and constructive. Saying "I don't like the characters because they are rude" is a valid opinion but not a criticism.
Again, this is not what I said. I said that these characters are poorly written when compared to previous iterations of the series as well as when compared with other works of fiction that are considered to be of high standard. I said that "the characters are mean" is a very minor complaint which has some basis in criticism regarding characterization but that more often than not it is the only thing defenders of the writing hold onto(such as you are doing) because they feel it is easily debunked(it isn't) and thereby refutes the other arguments as well.
Please, stop twisting my words. It is presumptuous of you and you have already complained about this.
You can criticise how a character backstory is written because is inconsistent or full of cliché (for example I agree they feel all to important to be lvl one characters), but you can't criticise a character just because you don't like its *attitude* more so when said attitude is coherent with the context. You can say "I personally don't like mean character", and it will be a respectable opinion, not "I personally don't like mean character, therefore Larian has written them badly".
I didn't criticize it because I don't like it, I criticized it because it doesn't work well. Furthermore, why did you dilute the argument about them being main characters while also being side characters into "I think they are mean so they are poorly written" yet again and ignore the actual argument? You are being intellectually dishonest.
You did not address any criticism other than "they are mean" which wasn't part of my argument, ignored evidence and failed to present your own, and made many presumptions as well as twisting and misrepresenting my words to suit your argument. Maybe you did not do so intentionally, I don't know, but I will advise you that this does not work on me.